Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5705756
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he noted my frustration when he gave way to the Minister but not me. The Member will know that I am steeped in the coercive control legislation and that I have fought, as he and his party have, against controlling and coercive behaviours. We have championed that together, and we have done very well on it. However, his coercive control clause is particular to the act of conversion therapy. Although he uses the same framework, it is not the same. The coercive behaviour in this context is conversion therapy. The issue that I have is with his definition of conversion therapy. Clause 4 states:
"In this Act, a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any of the following— (a) counselling or any form of talking therapy, (b) coaching or instruction,"
That is where my problem lies. You have used controlling, coercive behaviours and attached them to conversion therapies, and, in your definition, that includes, "coaching or instruction". That will bring in parents, pastors, preachers, medical professionals and teachers.
Will the Member give way?
192 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.13 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.